Tag: Tulip Siddiq

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    Tulip Siddiq – 2025 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    The resignation letter sent by Tulip Siddiq, the Treasury Minister, to Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 January 2025.

    Dear Prime Minister,

    Thank you for the confidence you have shown in me in recent weeks.

    I am grateful to your Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards Sir Laurie Magnus for acting with speed and thoroughness in response to my self-referral, and for giving me the opportunity to share the full details of my finances and living arrangements, both present and historic.

    As you know, having conducted an in-depth review of the matter at my request, Sir Laurie has confirmed that I have not breached the Ministerial Code. As he notes, there is no evidence to suggest that I have acted improperly in relation to the properties I have owned or lived in, nor to suggest that any of my assets ‘derive from anything other than legitimate means’.

    My family connections are a matter of public record, and when I became a Minister I provided the full details of my relationships and private interests to the Government. After extensive consultation with officials, I was advised to state in my declaration of interests that my aunt is the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and to recuse myself from matters relating to Bangladesh to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. I want to assure you that I acted and have continued to act with full transparency and on the advice of officials on these matters.

    However, it is clear that continuing in my role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury is likely to be a distraction from the work of the Government. My loyalty is and always will be to this Labour Government and the programme of national renewal and transformation it has embarked upon. I have therefore decided to resign from my Ministerial position.

    I would like to thank you for the privilege of serving in your Government, which I will continue to support in any way I can from the backbenches.

    Best wishes, Tulip Siddiq MP

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    Tulip Siddiq – 2024 Speech on the Government’s Vision for the Future of UK Capital Markets

    The speech made by Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the London Stock Exchange on 6 September 2024.

    Good morning and thanks for the invitation. It’s so lovely to be here today, and it’s one of my first addresses in my new role as City minister.

    And it’s a very deliberate decision that I’ve taken, because growth is the defining mission of this government, which you’ve probably heard us say over and over again. From the top down to the centre out, we recognise the importance of capital markets to delivering this growth mission that we’ve consistently talked about for the last few years. And As the Chancellor herself said – many of you will have heard at Barclays CEO forum recently – “when the City succeeds, Britain succeeds”. Nothing demonstrates that better than our capital markets.

    It’s not just that when our markets do well, our economy does well. Already this year, more than £20 billion worth of equity capital has been raised in London alone, more than three times what has been raised in the next three European exchanges combined – to support businesses to invest, to innovate and to grow.

    And according to a New Financial report from 2020, 90% of large UK companies regularly use capital markets, supporting some 5.5 million jobs. It’s not just large companies which benefit from our markets. Over the last five years combined, more than half of all capital raised in European growth markets was raised in London. And although these facts speak for themselves, I’ll spell out what they say: that UK capital markets will underpin our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth.

    But I also know that for our capital markets, stability and just the right amount of risk is the formula for economic growth. Whilst too much political change can unbalance that formula by moderating the market’s ability to signal opportunities for profit and risks of loss.

    So let me be clear to everyone who has raised this with me. We will not pursue change for its own sake. The economist Adam Smith once wrote about an invisible hand, a metaphor for the forces that guide decision-making in the market. Well, I want you to be in no doubt – because in the marketplace of ideas, evidence will be the hand that guides our decision making in policy making generally and capital markets policy specifically. You can describe our approach to the existing program of capital markets reform with this timeless saying, which is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. I hope that reassures some of the people who’ve raised this with me about continuity.

    And while reviewing the existing plans for reform to a capital markets there’s three things that I was struck by. Firstly, the proposals are technically rigorous. Secondly, they have the support of our financial services industry and its regulators. But lastly, and this is most importantly, I know they will support our mission of sustained and meaningful economic growth. And so I, and this government, will support them.

    And I’ll begin that support by highlighting some of the most exciting policy initiatives. Some of which Julia and I were discussing when we came in. For example, the FCA’s changes to our listing rules will revolutionise our markets. By making changes to rules on dual-class share structures, related party transactions and introducing a new international secondary listing category, we will directly align our markets with leading international counterparts and provide greater flexibility to firms and founders raising capital.

    The impact of some of these changes are already being felt, and I’m delighted that some firms are already taking advantage of them.

    The government will also continue to collaborate with a number of industry driven initiatives. Working closely with our Industry Technical group led by Andrew Douglas, and building momentum towards faster settlement of securities trades. And I look forward to the final report of the Task Force led by Sir Douglas Flint on improving the current system of share ownership and eliminating the use of paper share certificates.

    And we remain fully committed, as I just said before we came on, to take forward the new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – or PISCES – a world-first bespoke regulated market for private company shares. This will help investors to invest in exciting private companies and support innovative companies to grow – and ultimately to an IPO.

    To my mind, government works best when it’s underpinned by honest and open conversation. And that’s why it’s very important to me to thoroughly examine the feedback from the consultation earlier this year, and to ensure that all of your opinions are properly reflected in our decision-making process.

    And while it’s clear to me that there is huge support for the PISCES project, it is also clear that on the issues of disclosure and market abuse we need to tailor our thinking further. So please be assured that my officials and I will continue working with you. And in that spirit, my officials will be in attendance at the roundtable on PISCES later today, and I’ll ensure that all the conclusions from this roundtable are considered in our final proposal to ensure that PISCES does deliver on its promise.

    But I know that we can go even further to restore competitiveness to our capital markets.

    And of course, a lot of you will be looking forward to the Mansion House speech and the Budget later on, which will set out the plans for our sector in more detail. But I would urge you, if you haven’t already, to look at the report “Financing Growth” – that I published earlier this year – which unapologetically puts really reinvigorating our capital markets at the heart of this government’s growth mission. It’s what we campaigned on, and it’s what we intend to deliver in government.

    They include proposals to encourage the investment of capital freed by Solvency II reforms into UK infrastructure and green industries. To empower the British Business Bank with a more ambitious remit, for example, providing match funding to spin out seed funds. And a landmark review of the UK’s pensions and retirement saving landscape to explicitly consider the role of pension funds in capital and financial markets to boost both their returns and broader economic growth.

    Confirming this review was one of the first announcements made by the Chancellor, and this phase will be led by my colleague Emma Reynolds, who is the Minister for Pensions. She will be speaking here later today. And I encourage you to join this, which is the session on the UK pensions landscape, because Emma will outline the exciting plans that we’ve undertaken as a government.

    So, I do recognise that these proposals are challenging. I’m not naive about it.

    But I am confident looking around this room today and seeing the expertise here, that if we work together, we will be delivering this, because sustained and meaningful economic growth is not just the government’s mission, it’s a mission that we share with everyone in this room.

    So now let’s go out and deliver it.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many refugees were referred to her Department by the UN High Commission for Refugees under (a) the Gateway Protection Programme, (b) the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme and (c) the Mandate Refugee Scheme in each year since 2009-10; and how many such refugees in each year and for each scheme her Department refused after carrying out checks.

    James Brokenshire

    We do not report on how many people have been identified for resettlement in the UK under these schemes. Not all referrals translate into arrivals for a variety of reasons. In some instances, refugees choose to withdraw, for example, following the death of a family member, marriage or childbirth. Furthermore the Home Office also retains the right to reject individuals on security, war crimes or other grounds. In addition we do not currently differentiate between cases that are refused or withdrawn and therefore do not hold the information on refusals in the format requested.

    Notwithstanding this, the Home Office is committed to publishing data on arrivals through the resettlement programmes in an orderly way as part of the regular quarterly Immigration Statistics, in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. The next set of figures will be in the quarterly release on 25 February 2016 and will cover the period October-December 2015. These numbers will be updated each quarter.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 8 February 2016 to Question 25818, on NHS England: Deloitte, how many policies NHS England is working on with Deloitte and its clinical reference group.

    George Freeman

    Due to the need to safeguard commercial-in-confidence information, we are unable to provide a breakdown of the number of policies completed within the contract.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of applicants for disabled students’ allowance (DSA) used supporting notes from (a) medical professionals connected to and (b) medical professionals not connected to their higher education institution to back up their application; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of people who claim DSA without the knowledge of their higher education institution.

    Joseph Johnson

    Students wishing to apply for Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSAs) need to provide evidence of their disability to Student Finance England (SFE) in order to demonstrate their eligibility. Depending on their disability, this needs to come from a medical doctor or other suitably qualified professional. Information about whether this evidence is provided by someone connected to the students’ HE provider is not held centrally.

    Students are encouraged to speak to their institution’s disability adviser, to ensure they are receiving all the help that is available to them. However, students do not need to disclose their disability to their HE provider in order to apply for DSAs.

    All disabled higher education students who are eligible for Disabled Students’ Allowances are referred to an independent assessment centre so as to identify the type and level of support they require.

    Students are free to choose which assessment centre they wish to attend. They can find a centre via the DSAs Quality Assurance Group’s website:

    http://www.dsa-qag.org.uk/students/find-an-assessment-centre

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many appeals against Local Planning Authority decisions by developers he has received under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in each year since 2009-10; in how many of those cases in each year did he exercise his powers under Section 79 of that Act to (a) allow under Section 79(1)(a), (b) dismiss under Section 79(1)(b), (c) decline to determine under Section 79(6), (d) dismiss under Section 79(6A) the appeal and (e) amend the planning authority’s original decision in any way; and in how many such cases the Local Planning Authority subsequently paid compensation to the developer as a result of his decision.

    Brandon Lewis

    The attached table only covers Section 79 (1)(a) and Section 79(1)(b).

    We do not hold the data on section 79(6) as the legislation is very rarely used with only a handful of cases in the last 7 years. In addition, the Section 79 (6) ‘compensation’ element only allows for a party to apply for costs. This can only occur where a party has behaved unreasonably, and this has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. The costs order states the broad extent of the expense the party can recover from the party against whom the award is made. It does not determine the actual amount. PPG ‘Appeals’ section 4 relates.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many NHS transplant centres there are for the transplantation of stem cells for people with blood cancer or blood disorders; how much funding has NHS England provided to such centres in each year since 2009-10; and in the latest inspections by the Joint Accreditation Committee for the International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE), on how many of the standards set by JACIE was each entre found (a) compliant and (b) non-compliant.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS England commissions stem cell transplant activity for adults and children from 46 providers and have provided the following information on funding.

    Total funding for stem cell transplantation was £163 million in 2013/14 and £170 million in 2014/15. Services are commissioned within this budget based on need rather than as individual services. Stem cell transplantation is subject to local pricing and so it is not possible to provide information about funding by provider as this is commercially sensitive.

    NHS England is responsible for commissioning specialised care involving adult bone marrow transplantation that includes care up to 100 days after transplant. The costs of care up to 100 days post-transplant are included within the overall budget for stem cell transplantation. NHS England does not hold data on the funding of care beyond this 100 day period.

    The Department does not hold information on funding provided for these services before the creation of NHS England in 2013.

    The Joint Accreditation Committee for the International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE) is an independent organisation and the Department does not hold data related to JACIE compliance.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many export extradition requests her Department received from Category 2 territories in each year since 2009-10; how many such requests she certified; how many of those requests were approved by district judges at extradition hearings; and in how many such cases she ordered extradition.

    James Brokenshire

    “Category 2 territories” refers to countries designated as extradition partners under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Not all the information requested is held centrally. The tables below set out the information which is centrally held by the Home Office.

    Figures for the numbers of people extradited or requests refused in a particular year may include those for whom a request was made in a previous year.

    Import extradition requests involving Category 2 territories

    Year

    Requests submitted to the Home Office for Category 2 territories

    Requests sent to Category 2 territories

    Number of people extradited to the UK

    2009

    35

    35

    26

    2010

    33

    33

    19

    2011

    49

    49

    22

    2012

    32

    32

    25

    2013

    23

    23

    26

    2014

    37

    37

    11

    2015

    45

    45

    26

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many full-time equivalent staff from (a) police, (b) probation and (c) prison services employed in multi-agency public protection arrangements work in each responsible authority (a) on the last date for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 2009-10.

    Andrew Selous

    The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) provide a statutory framework within which criminal justice and social care agencies are required to assess and manage the risk presented by sexual and violent offenders, with a view to reducing re-offending and protecting the public. MAPPA is not a statutory body in itself but is a mechanism through which agencies can better discharge their statutory responsibilities and protect the public in a co-ordinated manner.

    The Responsible Authorities – the Probation, Police and Prison Services acting jointly – have a duty to ensure that the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders are assessed and managed property. The work undertaken by the Responsible Authorities to manage these offenders can therefore not be disaggregated from the core business of agency management.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 3 March 2016 to Question 28970, how much public funding for stem cell research has been allocated through the National Institute for Health Research in each year since 2003-04.

    George Freeman

    The information requested is not available. Spend on research funded directly by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is categorised by Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health categories. There is no HRCS category for stem cell research.

    Prior to the establishment of the NIHR in April 2006, the main part of the Department’s total health research expenditure was devolved to and managed by National Health Service organisations. The NHS organisations reported on their use of these allocations in annual research and development reports. These reports estimated total, aggregated spend on certain priority areas but spend on stem cell research was not estimated. From April 2006 to March 2009, transitional research funding was allocated to these organisations at reducing levels. At the same time, an increasing amount of NHS research funding was awarded competitively through new NIHR programmes and schemes.